Is the demand for certainty satisfied where, after a survey of relevant, state-law materials, the federal court can only say what is 'suggestive' and what 'appears' from those materials, and where the federal court then looks to policy reasons identified by this Court in interpreting a federal statute as an indication of how the state statute should be read?

QUESTION PRESENTED In Mathis v. United States, this Court addressed when the statute of conviction for a prior offense claimed to be an Armed Career Criminal Act predicate is divisible, allowing the use of the “modified categorical approach” to determine the nature of the conviction. This Court made clear that a “demand for certainty” applies to identifying the elements of such a statute. Where there is no such certainty that the statute contains alternative element sets, it cannot be held to be divisible. The question presented here involves the application of the demand for certainty. Specifically, Is the demand for certainty satisfied where, after a survey of relevant, state-law materials, the federal court can only say what is “suggestive” and what “appears” from those materials, and where the federal court then looks to policy reasons identified by this Court in interpreting a federal statute as an indication of how the state statute should be read?